I have a great deal of respect for General David Petraeus.

In my opinion, the man should run for President, and "I", would probably vote for him if he did.

In my opinion, he is exactly the kind of man we need, in the office of the Presidency.

First of all, he is an honorable man. (Unlike Bushie). Petraeus will tell you the truth, even if it's not pleasant. That, is important.

Secondly, he is respectful. (Unlike Bushie). The mil kinda tends to "make" you that way, right? And I mean, you can see how Petraeus carries himself in the world, he "genuinely" respects other people. Not like Bushie. For Bushie, other people seem to be just a gigantic pain in the rear end. And that, is a very (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor attitude for the President of the United States, in my opinion. I don't want a man like that representing me.

Thirdly, General Petraeus knows something about something. (Unlike Bushie, who's a clueless freakin' idiot). You know, I mean, from the simple military standpoint, of the kinds of things you need to learn, to be able to understand what a "counter-insurgency" thing means, and how to actually "implement" one - if you understand that model, which Petraeus obviously does ('cause he's doin' it, right?) - then that'll "require" you to know a LOT about a LOT of other things too. I mean, I know all about "models", right? I have a PhD in the subject. Mine, happens to be in "belief models", but I mean, the exact same math applies to operational models as well (and you know, I've been studyin' math for darn near forty years now, so while I don't have a degree in it, I can confidently say I could run circles around "most" actual PhD's, in that particular field) - so, all I'm saying is, when I say, "that model requires you to know something", I have some "very good reason" for saying that, right?

You know, so I mean, I could on, with other 'good" things about Petraeus - and you know, Duh2, this is something that may help you understand "me" (if you "want to" ) - is, you know, I look at a guy like that, and I don't care whether he's a Dem, a Rep, or what he is. I don't even care if he's implementing a Rep agenda, or a Dem agenda or whatever. 'Cause I mean, I'm assuming the guy'd have an agenda of his own, if he got into office, yes?

But see, what I take away from the "honorable and respectful" bit, is that the guy takes his job seriously. And I mean, "obviously", right? He's risen to the very top of the second largest institution in the country, precisely because he takes his job seriously, yes?

So I mean, when that guy takes an "Oath of Office", in "my" mind, I have "complete confidence", that those words actually mean something, "to him". 'Cause that's what matters, right? The "to him" part.